Town Square

Vote No on Props. 30, 38

Original post made
on Oct 30, 2012

Of the 11 statewide propositions on the Nov. 6 General Election, the San Ramon and Danville Expresses, along with the Pleasanton Weekly, find only five to support: Propositions 32, 34, 35, 36 and 40, as well as local Measure D. We'll tell you why later this week. For now, we are recommending No votes on all the others, most notably on Propositions 30 and 38.

I agree with Derek, why would anyone follow the recommendation of someone who suggest Ms. Morgan, who lied about her profession, to our town council. Should be noted that Contra Costa Times recommended Mr. Nealis, not the phony architect Ms. Morgan.

Posted by JRM
a resident of Vista Grande Elementary School
on Oct 30, 2012 at 8:22 pm

I agree with American..100%. In addition, given his advanced age Mr. Doyle could care less about getting re-elected when he is 90 years of age (I would hope) so he is a major risk to cave to the developers since he will be in essence a lame duck council member for the next elected period, a one time candidate. Let's look forward fellow citizens. Being practical is not being ageist...

Posted by RIGHT - NO 30 & 38
a resident of San Ramon
on Oct 30, 2012 at 11:48 pm

ABSOLUTELY NO on 30 & 38. jerry Brown and team is really doing a desperate death gasp of lies this final week. Their latest word game is telling us 30 would be for schools, public safety, and rebuilding our economy! ! ! That's not TOO WIDE OPEN ! ! ! ! geeez
'Public safety' translates into the most abusive PRISON guard union for starters ! plus all the other CA public unions that Jerry started 30+ years ago! He made the mess, he should clean it up. All he gave us was some changes for NEW hires, and when they retire in 30 years we'll notice some improvements ! ! Don't insult us!! Get real! Let's have some HONESTY NOW!
AND it's YES on 32 to stop the theft of worker's pay, for politics, without the worker's permission. We shouldn't HAVE to say that. How horrible all these years of stealing worker's pay without their permission.

Posted by RIGHT - NO 30 & 38
a resident of San Ramon
on Oct 31, 2012 at 12:03 am

Hey you clowns, this is not about personalities! CA FUTURE will be decide in a few days!! These phony band-aids won't fix anything, until the unions are fixed. What's the point of finding new creative ways to suck more taxes every few years, while the unions abuses coninue....a really big hole in the ship of state ! !
Get real, or get off this thread.
Also, YES 32, employers and union bosses must stop stealing a worker's pay for political purposes, without the worker's permission. OK IF worker gives permission FREELY without intimidation.

As I said in a post to a previous thread, when I get the right to tell companies in which I own stock to pass through to me my share of the money they spend on political purposes, I'll vote yes on Prop 32.

You're misinformed about Prop 37. Bill Mahar and Gary Hirshberg, the Chairman of Stonyfield Farm, founder of the "Just Label It" campaign, and author of Label It Now: What You Need to Know About Genetically Engineered Foods talked about why they support California Proposition 37, the ballot initiative that would require the labeling of genetically engineered food and here are excerpts.
Bill Mahar: "Monsanto makes RoundUp, that's the herbicide. Then they genetically engineer a crop that isn't effected by RoundUp. That's pretty evil. First of all, they lie and say we need this to increase crop yields, but there's no evidence of that."
Gary Hirshberg: "There's zero evidence. The Union of Concerned Scientists has shown that genetic engineering has no benefits for consumers, no benefits for farmers. That is the big lie."
Bill Mahar: "So they're using all these pesticides, and they have to use more and more as time goes by, because like any drug, and I know this from experience, the more you do the more you need. Your tolerance goes up. That's what's happened with the crops, they keep using more pesticides."
Gary Hirshberg: "527 million pounds more herbicides have been used since the introduction of Monsanto's genetically engineered crops."
So...who still wants to vote "Yes" to Prop 37 and add $$$$ to Monsanto's coffers and further endanger our health?

I'm surprised to read the Danville Express positions on Prop. 30 and 32. They have it completely backwards and are contrary to the recommendations of the non-partisan League of Women Voters. Vote YES on 30. This is a well thought out and especially needed proposition to save California from desperate times. Proposition 30 begins to move California toward financial stability and adequate funding for all the services we want from our government; we can't continue to cut vital public services like schools, community colleges, public safety, infrastructure, etc. These things aren't free! This measure will provide some much needed income from a temporary increase in income tax rates for the wealthy and a modest temporary sales tax increase. The plan is a part of a balanced approach to eliminating our deficit that includes $8 billion in cuts, $6 billion in new revenues, and $2.5 billion in loans, deferrals, etc., this year. Proposition 30 also guarantees a stable source of funding for counties to pay for their new public safety responsibilities such as housing low-level prisoners and providing substance abuse treatment. I hate to imagine what will happen to California without Proposition 30 passing!!

Regarding Proposition 32  Vote NO. The people who are supporting it with TONS of money are the Koch Brothers and other like-minded millionaires  many from out of state. Koch Industries is the second largest privately owned company in the United States. They would love to have you vote their way so they can better control us. This measure is not the campaign finance reform measure its proponents say it is. Proposition 32 promises "political reform" but is really designed by special interests to help themselves and harm their opponents. It looks like a campaign finance reform measure but unfairly targets one set of large campaign donors while giving other donors unlimited power. Its ban on payroll deductions for political giving will affect unions but not corporations, and even the restriction it places on contributions to candidates by corporations is full of loophole exemptions. It does not fix the problem of money in politics; Super PACs and independent expenditure committees will continue to spend without limitation.

Vote no on 37 because Bill Mahar supports it? He simply invited Gary Hirshberg to speak on his HBO show about the subject, since Gary Hirshberg has done the research and can speak intelligently about the subject of GMO food and its creation by the pesticide producers of the world. I guess you'd rather be in bed with Monsanto. Good luck to your 3 children (and their children) who are eating that GMO food that you don't know about. BTW, there are no additional costs associated with the GMO labeling of food. That information is also incorrect to scare away those who don't know the difference between the truth and fiction. If you don't trust Bill Mahar, then you at least should read what Gary Hirshberg has to say about Prop 37 and GMO food. He's done the work so the rest of us can know the truth. This is more important than just "no new taxes."

The only reason to support Prop. 32 is if you honestly believe that our state would be best served by allowing corporations and the wealthy to have the exclusive right to participate in our public political discussions. Are you serious? Are laws and policies not already biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful for you that you want to ensure that they're the only voices heard?

I'm dying to hear your rationalization for serving California up to the Koch brothers and their ilk.

Posted by C. R. Mudgeon
a resident of Danville
on Oct 31, 2012 at 9:34 am

NO on 30 and 38, Yes on 32.

32 doesn't prevent unions from donating to political campaigns, nor does it prevent PACs (whether set up by individuals, unions, or corporations) from donating. For one thing, that would be very-arguably unconstitutional, as a violation of free speech (and to some extent the right of free association). 32 simply makes it illegal for unions to automatically deduct money from workers' paychecks to support political causes. The law applies also to corporations, and companies, but in practice they don't really do this anyway.

In terms of special interests, unions usually far out-strip corporations in terms of dollars donated (in CA), and unions also tend to be much more one-sided in their support for candidates. (Corporations are somewhat more prone to donate to both parties, or to whoever looks like they're most likely to win.) You can get a sense of this just by counting the "No on 32" TV ads, versus the "Yes on 32" ads. Far more money has been thrown in on the No side.

I would also suggest that disagreeing with the Express' editorial position on local races (for various reasons) shouldn't lead to an automatic disagreement with the Express' Proposition recommendations. Although, I DO think it makes sense to look at who supports and who opposes the various propositions...

Posted by RIGHT - NO 30 & 38
a resident of San Ramon
on Oct 31, 2012 at 10:39 am

According to Cato Institute Report Oct 24, 2012.
We spend $72 Billion more on education that we did in 1972 when Jerry Brown was first elected, after adjusting for growth and inflation.
Yet, CA SAT scores in MATH and READING have never gone above scores
that year. SO, it would appear spending money in 'education' apparently is NOT the problem !!
Of course that's when Jerry also STARTED PUBLIC unions in that term.
Possibly, there is a connection. Teachers becoming politically active union members didn't help 'the children'.

Common Cause, the non-partisan, fairness-in-government, citizens' organization is opposed to Prop. 32, because it is not real campaign finance reform. It just tilts the balance even more in favor of corporate influence in elections.

Prop. 37  No. Isn't it true that 2/3rds of foods would be exempt from the labeling requirement? How are you supposed to know whether you're eating genetically modified food or whether it's just exempt?

Prop. 30  I'm leaning no. All the money goes to Sacramento to be spent on things like trains to nowhere. No new spending on schools. Contra Costa Times says to vote no and they tend to be fairly even handed.

Measure D  Coin toss. SRVSD is doing a good job. They say they need the money, but haven't made a strong case why we need to go into debt for things like $63 million to renovate Stone Valley Middle School.

Posted by conservative mom
a resident of Danville
on Oct 31, 2012 at 9:11 pm

spcwt, 38 also funds debt payments, so no, it doesn't all go directly to schools. No on 30, 32, 38 and No on Measure D. Anyone who votes for a tax increase in addition to the tax increases that are already due to take effect on Jan 1 2013 must be crazy. Do your homework people.

California is one of the highest taxed states and it still can't pay its bills in large part because time and again tax revenue gets earmarked by propositions like 39. These propositions force the state to spend money on things like green energy, stem cell research, trains to nowhere, etc. rather than basic stuff like cops and teachers, etc.

Posted by NO NEW TAXES
a resident of Los Cerros Middle School
on Nov 1, 2012 at 8:36 am

No on 30! Money raised DOES NOT have to go to schools, and the idea that it might is a typical ploy to get the parent/teacher vote. And in any case, more earmarked money for schools just gives the policitians more money elsewhere to throw at ridiculous trade union-backed sinkholes like the train to nowhere. And speaking of sinking, the whole state is sinking under the weight of taxes, which are the highest in the nation. No wonder people and businesses are leaving.

Likewise, we should vote "no" on D. If you do, you are giving the school board a free pass for failing to get the developers to pay for enough classroom space when Dougherty Valley was built. There are still more homes to be built there. How about putting a surcharge on those to pay for the classrooms? Why should the rest of us pay while the developers get away with it?

C. R. Mudgeon: "The law applies also to corporations, and companies, but in practice they don't really do this anyway." And as Anatole France famously observed, "The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges and beg in the streets." Did you ever stop to think why the proposed law doesn't prohibit corporations from spending their shareholder's money on politics without getting the approval of each and every one of them, and only prohibits the representatives of workers from doing so?

We don't need to tilt the playing field any further in favor of the wealthy and powerful. The increasing concentration of wealth and power which has occurred over the past 35 years has gone too far already. Ignoring the actual effect and intent of proposed laws just invites more sleazy machinations like Prop. 32.

To "conservative mom." I hear your positions and can understand where you are coming from. Are you sure you want to note "No" on Prop. 32? Greece has set the tone for Europe followed by Spain and then by California for the United States. California is virtually a one-party state, Democrat. How did this happen? We are under a death grip of the Public Employee unions. Presently we have involuntary contributions in the form of payroll deductions from the employees paychecks. This has a created a mammoth fund to support the one-party system we have in the State. The ads. against Prop. 32 complain about the wealth and spending of evil corporations, out-of-state interests and "Big Oil" put forth by this measure. Yet all the ads i've seen are against 32. Where did all this money come from; involuntary contributions from public employee paychecks.

Where has it gotten us? 11% unemployment, among the highest in the nation; the highest taxes in the country, when income, property and sales taxes are taken into consideration; and a broke treasury. Obscene public employee retirement plans must be fixed before we can dig ourselves out of this mess. Prop. 32 is a great starting place.

Thanks S-P. I am surprised that trade group like the US Chamber or BRT mustered the effort for a fight.

'No' may be the default position on Props, but there are too many instances where the Legislature has been bought/paid-for, and refuses to pass laws that are popular with the electorate.

My own favorite example was Prop 2 on minimum decencies for food animals. HSUS (hardly to be considered animal rights crazies) tried for twenty years to get it passed in the legislature, but Big Ag opposed it, so nothing happened. I had the same experience on an anti-cruelty bill I got through the Conf of Delegates. On animal law, too many eyes look to the Harris Ranch. As I recall, Prop 2 passed comfortably, like 2-1.

I'm also "yes" on 34, although the legislature's reluctance there is the fear of being labeled "soft on crime," which is ridiculous. To me, CP fails on economics ($300M per croaking, which CA cannot afford), on policy (e.g., especially the 138 later exonerations), and on values grounds.

Most of the corporate shares I own are in mutual funds in my retirement account. I can't "sell my shares" in any particular corporation in those funds, I don't control that decision. I have no ability to "vote the management out" even in the stock I own directly - I don't have enough percentage of ownership to do that. (When was the last time management was "voted out" by the shareholders of any of the thousands of publicly-held American corporations?) I will be relying on my retirement savings for my income in a few short years. I have less say over the way the money is spent by corporations my retirement funds are invested in than a worker in a unionized workplace has over the way his dues are spent.

It's a bogus distinction, designed to distract attention from the fact that the wealthy and powerful are seeking to legally stifle the one source of organized economic opposition to their total control of the American economy. I guess they don't like to see any competition of ideas.

Posted by RIGHT - NO 30 & 38
a resident of San Ramon
on Nov 2, 2012 at 2:26 pm

Tom Bogetich, former Executive Director of CA State Board of Educ, says "Vote NO on 3O. "It doesn't guaranatee one penny of new funding for schools - it just gives politicians billions in taxes to spend however they choose."
32 requires permission of a worker to take money for politics out of workers paycheck. YES on 32. . .Gloria Romerio, Former DEM Majority Leader in CA state Senate is doing YES on 32 tv ads.

I've already voted no on 30 and 38. Until this state can get it's house in order on pensions for the teachers union, prison guards, College employees etc, than I will not agree to pay 1 penny more in taxes. Measure D is also a big NO. The list they put together was suspect at best and at worst outright fabrication. We already have 6 bonds on our property taxes, do we really need a 7th! Also, if you want to know how much 38 will raise your taxes, go to their website and put in how much money you make. You'll be shocked. This would raise my taxes almost $3,000 per year.